Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Despite the differences I have with the Vatican, I think they might even endorse a nonbeliever like me to say something. Curtis idoes not exactly seem like the ideal poster boy for the Catholic Church! Haha

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Sorry Greg but you are just plain wrong. An experiment that had been running for decades just finished up a couple of yours ago finally lending scientific proof to Relativity.
And it wasn't until 1979 that the first gravitational lense was seen.
I am absolutely amazed at how you folks will just make up stuff out of thin air whenever you feel the need."

Curtis,

There are two theories of Relativity. The first was the the Special Theory published in 1905

"The Annus Mirabilis papers are four articles pertaining to the photoelectric effect (which gave rise to quantum theory), Brownian motion, the special theory of relativity, and E = mc2 that Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four works contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter."

In 1916 he published his General Theory of which the experimentation that you speak of is still being done.

"He realized, however, that the principle of relativity could also be extended to gravitational fields, and with his subsequent theory of gravitation in 1916, he published a paper on the general theory of relativity. He continued to deal with problems of statistical mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his explanations of particle theory and the motion of molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties of light which laid the foundation of the photon theory of light. In 1917, Einstein applied the general theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole.[6]"

"During 1911, he had calculated that, based on his new theory of general relativity, light from another star would be bent by the Sun's gravity. That prediction was claimed confirmed by observations made by a British expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington during the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. International media reports of this made Einstein world famous. On 7 November 1919, the leading British newspaper The Times printed a banner headline that read: "Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".[48] "

While the measurement of the how much light is bent by gravity was a confirmation of aspect of the General Theory ( I think I said the Special Theory), the idea that there was no confirmation at all of the Theory until "decades later" is completely wrong. We've been at this awhile. The need to make things up to support a point is not something that I intentionally do.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Greg: "Not quite. Einstein's dad was an Electrical engineer. He had access to information on electromagnetism i think it was either 1903 or 1905 that he published his special theory of relativity that predicted that light would be bent by gravity and by how much. Measurements were taken of how much star light was bent during a total eclipse of the sun in 1919. His predictions were confirmed He won the 1921 Nobel Prize for something completely different (the photoelectric effect). While many facets of the General Theory were confirmed much later, facets of the special theory had been confirmed fairly early. "

"Sorry Greg but you are just plain wrong. An experiment that had been running for decades just finished up a couple of yours ago finally lending scientific proof to Relativity.
And it wasn't until 1979 that the first gravitational lense was seen.
I am absolutely amazed at how you folks will just make up stuff out of thin air whenever you feel the need."

Curtis,

There are two theories of Relativity. The first was the the Special Theory published in 1905

"The Annus Mirabilis papers are four articles pertaining to the photoelectric effect (which gave rise to quantum theory), Brownian motion, the special theory of relativity, and E = mc2 that Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four works contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter."

In 1916 he published his General Theory of which the experimentation that you speak of is still being done.

"He realized, however, that the principle of relativity could also be extended to gravitational fields, and with his subsequent theory of gravitation in 1916, he published a paper on the general theory of relativity. He continued to deal with problems of statistical mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his explanations of particle theory and the motion of molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties of light which laid the foundation of the photon theory of light. In 1917, Einstein applied the general theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole.[6]"

"During 1911, he had calculated that, based on his new theory of general relativity, light from another star would be bent by the Sun's gravity. That prediction was claimed confirmed by observations made by a British expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington during the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. International media reports of this made Einstein world famous. On 7 November 1919, the leading British newspaper The Times printed a banner headline that read: "Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".[48] "

While the measurement of the how much light is bent by gravity was a confirmation of aspect of the General Theory ( I think I said the Special Theory), the idea that there was no confirmation at all of the Theory until "decades later" is completely wrong. We've been at this awhile. The need to make things up to support a point is not something that I intentionally do.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

So when was it more together? This is a serious question. What is the ideal state of togetherness or not breaking up, so that we know how to travel towards that end of the spectrum (even if we may never reach it)?

“I remember Houston and already some 45 years ago one didn't want to walk the streets of downtown alone at night.”

Most people I know don’t mind walking downtown alone at night now (there are more dangerous areas, of course). It never hurts to exercise your Second Amendment rights in the process, however ;)

“As to the other, it's fun pushing what you say to the extremes. It helps make a point, and you have yourself on occasion pushed the envelope of your own ideas, so why not others. While you may not advocate ‘perfect,’ to make a point you often go beyond what is reasonable in the real world.”

Okay, this is a fair point. As long as we’re on the same page regarding actual positions versus pushing the envelope to make a point, I have no quarrel with this.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Just for the record, under your original post today, I just posted to Greg the following.

"And in the post I referred Zach to I did say cyclical didn't I? What is important is the long term trend and in the US the current evidence seems to be, and one does have to hedge, that society is breaking down, again at least, at the macro level. The most glaring evidence of it is the inability of the political parties to bridge gaps, and the seemingly growing divide between people of your ideological persuasion and those that are still religious. Read Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart,” he has a lot of survey evidence with which I am sure you will have a field day disagreeing with."

It's up to you younger guys to keep society from breaking up. Sometimes the process (as per my model) can take centuries like in Rome but eventually it has resulted in collapse for all societies thus far. All I am trying to do is give you guys what I hope are better tools to do what has to be done, at least better than I had.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I have read "Coming Apart" and I agree mostly. I just don't know what to think about the idea that the new ruling elites are maintaining traditional values religious while the blue collar class is becoming secular.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

First, notice that I said that I think I understand at least one part, just one part of what may ail your country. As to labels, heck, when you start going across cultures these get in the way big time. Let me just say that you went part of the way in describing what I meant by intelligentsia when you said that “If anything I think that currently my country leans a bit too far to the Left, in particular in what regards to state intervention in the economy in the form of taxes,” but I would say intervention in much more than taxes.

Another way I described it was by saying that “…the individuality thing…managed to tie its rulers in knots [and] overwhelm the creative juices, drives and flexibility to the change necessary to maintain…growth.” Let me tell you a couple of experiences. My outfit did a lot of work in Argentina. We used to have a lot of difficulties enforcing contracts because Argentine lawyers were very creative and seemingly the law was quite flexible. We used to spend years in court.

Then one time I went to do a major operation. A friend who many years earlier had worked with my outfit and was now very senior in business and government, took me to lunch to try to explain Argentina. He had been minister four times. He told me one story that he said represented the reality of governing in Argentina, a reality wherein nobody wanted to make decisions and take risks. He said that on one occasion as minister he had given his chief legal counsel a problem. A few weeks went by and no answer, so the minister became insistent. Finally he took the case away and made his own decision. My friend told me that he had been sued by the chief counsel for “interfering with the creative process.” I couldn’t believe anyone could make a case like that in court but he told me it had actually happened.

He also told me that being sued for policy decisions was very common and ministers were very afraid to make decisions. Call it being Left or Enlightenment ideas gone awry, to me it was a case of everyone wanting to do their thing. On one occasion I had to do a study jointly with senior staff in one ministry and there were very few capable professionals; apparently good people stayed away from government. So where you spoke of ill advised taxes and protectionism, it could just be the lack of competent professionals to design better policies, at least back then in the 80s. Yet I think that overall the governing atmosphere might have developed over many decades. Other than that I saw in Argentina many of the same problems that prevailed in so many other Latin American countries, including debilitating corruption.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach, the problem is that think tanks like the CATO Institute are becoming rarer voices in the forest. As societies grow and become more complex, partial solutions like that which Obama is following increase in number. It's a vicious cycle until the number of excessively restrictive rules aimed at isolated but spectacular problems dominate and suffocate society.

I worked in many countries for many years so I have some basis for comparison and my gut feel is that the US has crossed or is crossing a threshold where regulation and other vices (since Horacio is here I was thinking of Argentina where I got the impression that part of their problem is that the intelligentsia overdid the individuality thing and managed to tie its rulers in knots) overwhelm the creative juices, drives and flexibility to change necessary to maintain past growth.

Your overall libertarian answer is the best but it is an example of where you are advocating something that is unreal in the sense that you'll never get society to go along and even if they did it still requires that an awful lot of kinks be worked out. So it becomes an idealist or "perfect" and thus impossible target that you are aiming at. I prefer to aim at more realistic solutions. If I want to go to the moon I aim for mars. You instead aim for another star and get lost in super sophisticated pursuits that are fun and do exercise the brain but that are of little, notice I didn't say any, practical use.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"(since Horacio is here I was thinking of Argentina where I got the impression that part of their problem is that the intelligentsia overdid the individuality thing and managed to tie its rulers in knots)"

I can give you my opinion if you want it, but i don't quite understand what you mean by "intelligentsia" that kind of "sounds" Italian.

Edit, wikipedia to the rescue:That is not actually the case, i would say FAR from it. The problem here, or at least how i see it, comes from decades of Military intervention in political affairs. Parties or Politics that should be long dead and forgotten have been kept current in place of a "social counterweight" to the disasters left by the Military Dictatorships of decades past.Think the URRS and Castro in Cuba, while the USA opposed the URRS, it was never a direct conflict or intervention, it was always war by proxies in the worst cases. In Cuba in contrast, the USA took direct action. The result Castro was kept relevant and current, the URRS failed and vanished into history.Same could be said, in my opinion, for Radical and Justicialista parties here. Both directly intervened by the Military both still current, despite their awful track record.

Regarding current policies, everyone here regards the USA as being in general a far right (politically speaking) country (both Democrats and Republicans). If anything i think that currently my country leans a bit too far to the Left, in particular in what regards to state intervention in the economy in the form of taxes. There are just too many taxes, too high, and protectionism simply does not work.It is different cultures, here we consider it is the duty of the state to provide an education and healthcare. As well as some form of social welfare to help the poorer people educate them selves and progress. Problem is that what is given does not merit the taxes paid for it.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Regarding Weapons/Guns: here, with out a special permit (which is rare and mostly given only to long guns/rifles, guns that can not be concealed and mostly for hunting) bearing arms is illegal. Last i heard (please do take this as hear say im not well versed in this), it went as far as when transporting a gun it has to be in its transport case, unloaded. If the weapon is loaded and you are caught it would add 1 year to your sentence per bullet.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

“Your overall libertarian answer is the best but it is an example of where you are advocating something that is unreal in the sense that you'll never get society to go along and even if they did it still requires that an awful lot of kinks be worked out.”

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zack,Didn't our president say that the rednecks cling to their religion and their guns? Note that he sent that goofus Biden out to charge the NRA defense line just like the normal wuss would do. What are underlings for if not to sacrifice.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

If God doesn’t adhere to man’s logic and reason, how can you use man’s logic and reason to deduce the meaning you’ve deduced from his statement, “"For my thoughts are not your thoughts…” To deduce any meaning from this statement would be to implicitly assume that God DOES adhere to man’s logic and reason.

Yes, I use logic and reason to understand my girlfriend and every other human being in the world. Logic isn’t encompassed by formal syllogisms alone; the very reason we can understand language to begin with is based on our ability to connect phonemes with objects, and more importantly intangible concepts. When your husband asks you if you’ve seen his crowbar lying around lately, “man’s logic” is what you use to deduce that he’s looking for a crowbar and not a banana. When he tells you that he loves you, the words have meaning because you can deductively connect “love” with an empirical observation you’ve made about your internal emotions. Without the most rudimentary powers of logical deduction, language becomes meaningless (e.g. Word X means Item Y, thus when someone says Word X, they are talking about Item Y).

You contradict yourself even further. You say that, “God not only knows what we will do before we do it. He sets us in the time and place to do it so that we accomplish his ultimate purpose…Now why would he do that if mankind did not have the choice of whether to reach out to God or not?” You just used man’s logic and reason to justify God’s actions. If God can’t be understood using man’s logic and reason, this is a contradiction. Whenever you say, “I know this is true because God told me so,” that implicitly assumes that his language is fit for the understanding of your logic and reason, also known as man’s logic and reason. If you ask, why wouldn’t God use language that man could truly understand, you are again attempting to apply man’s logic and reason in an attempt to understand God.

There are few arguments so crippled by dissonance.

The people who don’t reach out to God were created by God, who knew they would not reach out to him before he ever created them. Are they responsible for their own creation? Would you call them responsible for their actions even if they were created with their future already known, a path already set?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach: If that is the case, God is either omniscient OR we have free will.

---Have you ever done something that you knew (beforehand) would make your girlfriend upset? (Play Xbox late into the night, invite over an Army buddy that she hates, driver her car and move her mirrors?)

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Whether he knew it or not is relevant, what matters is if the supposed judge made you to behave a particular way and then judged you based on his moral interpretation of the way he made you to behave.

Perfect knowledge of future choices, design and judgment all in one is the issue.

It like me, getting mad at a program i wrote because it does what i wrote it to do. Its irrational. Should the program have self awareness and my self be about to obliterate it, yeah i could understand how he would not be so happy about it.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

All three, actually! Well, she rarely gets mad when I play XBox because she's a fan of computer games herself. But she isn't particularly fond of a number of my Army friends. As for the windows, we both have newer cars that automatically adjust, but twas not always so.

I'm slightly alarmed that you know me so well without ever actually meeting me, Bradley ;)

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

There's a difference between logic and reason, and communication. I can't use my logic and reason to say what God would do because I am not God. God can, however, communicate to me what he would do. God has said that what I think he should do is not what he will do. My thoughts aren't his thoughts.

I never said God couldn't be understood, I said if you want to know what he's doing and why, he will have to tell you. You can't figure it out using your knowledge and experience because you don't have God's knowledge and experience. That's why my husband has to ask me if I've seen his crowbar, because I don't know he's looking for the crowbar, nor can I read his mind. He has to tell me.

How can you use your logic and reason to understand God, and what he can and cannot do, when you aren't God? You can observe creation, but that alone won't tell you what God is thinking. He has to communicate that to you. He has communicated to me that he sets the time and place where each of us lives, so man may reach out to him and know him. From that, yes, I can use my own logic to figure out that God didn't program each of us to either reach out to him or not. But I wouldn't know that was his purpose if he hadn't told me.

For example you said: "Actually, I wouldn’t create Hitler at all if my objective was to prevent suffering and death." God hasn't said that his objective at this time is to prevent suffering and death. What man wants and what God is accomplishing are often very different things. Using my logic and reasoning, I think God should prevent any suffering and death in my life. God has not seen fit to do so. Do I curse him for not living up to my expectations? Or do I trust him and believe his ways are greater than mine?

God created mankind, but did he fashion each one of us to respond as we do? I say no. He may put us in circumstances where he knows how we will react, but I don't think he is the cause of our response. If you want to know God's purpose for allowing even those who will not reach out to him to be born and have a life on this earth, you will have to seek God's thoughts on the matter. You see no reason they should be born and have a life on this earth, but God's thoughts aren't your thoughts.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Actually, there isn’t. This is an easy mistake to make without formal training in both linguistics and logic. As I said before, consider word association. Your brain must logically connect Word X with Idea Y in order for language to make any sense to you. To assume that Word X will always mean Idea Y or Object Z is called logical induction (I misspoke before when I called it deduction). Without logical association, words and phonemes have no meaning; they are just guttural noises.

“How can you use your logic and reason to understand God, and what he can and cannot do, when you aren't God?”

I’m not you, Nancy, but I can understand what you can and cannot do using logic and reason. God is special, yes, but if he doesn’t conform to our logic and reason, than communicating reliably with him is out the window; we can be no more certain of the meaning of our interactions with him than bacteria in a petri dish can be certain of what it means when the big eye of a nearby scientist peers down upon them. Logic is essential to language, and thus communication; if God’s logic is different than ours, you can be no more certain of the meaning of his words than you could be of the meaning of humpback whale songs.

“Using my logic and reasoning, I think God should prevent any suffering and death in my life. God has not seen fit to do so. Do I curse him for not living up to my expectations? Or do I trust him and believe his ways are greater than mine?”

Yes, that’s just it. You are on a roller coaster ride; you have no idea what God has in store for you. You hope that you understand what he’s communicated to you (because it sounds like a good deal in the end), but if he doesn’t adhere to logic as we know it, there’s just as good a chance that he (for example) encourages premarital sex as not. If Word X can no longer be inductively connected to Behavior Y, then we have no way of reliably knowing whether God meant Behavior Y or Behavior Z when he used Word X.

“God created mankind, but did he fashion each one of us to respond as we do? I say no. He may put us in circumstances where he knows how we will react, but I don't think he is the cause of our response.”

How about this, Nancy: You create the laws that govern chemical reactions. Then you take a chunk of dry ice and pour water over it. The dry ice immediately begins vaporizing in accordance with one of the laws you have created. What was the ultimate cause of the dry ice vapor? Was it the law, or you?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Nancy, humans must trust that God is rational. Just for the sake of argument, we must assume that God created a rational universe, as opposed to the world of Alice In Wonderland.

So far humanity has helped itself along quite well by assuming God is rational and that He created a rational world because He is rational and can act in no other way than rationally, even that which He creates from scratch. The opposite of rational is the absurd. So we must decide if we are ruled by a rational God or an absurd God as a starting point from which to examine the world.

Me, I'm gonna come down of the rational side of existence just because it suits me better than Alice in Wonderland.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Ok – Let’s work with Army buddies. You have your friend over and your girlfriend gets moody. Which is broken here: your free will to invite your friend, your prediction of her reaction, or her free will to choose her reaction?

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

She gets moody because the past experiences, brain wiring have already informed her that she will no longer have Zach's undivided attention. Zach wiring was kicked off by some unknown stimili (probably the memory of a past Xbox Call of Duty MW2) match that he lost. She had no free will to mask her moodiness and probably reverted to that rather than outright anger from past heuristics from the shouting match that they had when this episode came up before. No one is choosing anything here. Even if Zach's girlfriend thought she was "choosing" the better path (being moody), her actions were already manifesting themselves before she 'felt" the melancholia of moodiness. Zach's heuristic network was oblivious to this possible reaction because he thinks she likes XBox. Think about it Brad. If people picked and chose their actions, then why do we get into explosive meltdown situations?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"You create the laws that govern chemical reactions. Then you take a chunk of dry ice and pour water over it. The dry ice immediately begins vaporizing in accordance with one of the laws you have created. What was the ultimate cause of the dry ice vapor? Was it the law, or you?"

Zach,

Once again you use your logic and understanding of the universe around you to try to explain God. Until you can understand that God is not limited to the material existence that limits you, you 'll never know what God can or cannot do.

"Philosophically, logic is the study of correct reasoning. Reasoning is an epistemic, mental activity."

"Communication (from Latin "communis", meaning to share) is the activity of conveying information through the exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, visuals, signals, writing, or behavior."

"Linguistics is the scientific study of human language. Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context."

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Argentina, a reality wherein nobody wanted to make decisions and take risks."I would say i dont completely agree with him. While its true most politicians are reticent to asuming real leadership, i think this is common to all democracies in the world, they need to please as many people as possible. Making hard choices is not usually the best tactic for this.Having said that, Kirchener did show some real leadership by saying NO to GWB and NAFTA, im pretty sure he was under some serious pressure from all sides, but ended up choosing what was best for the country at the time. Thou granted this was not an unpoppular choice.

"He also told me that being sued for policy decisions was very common and ministers were very afraid to make decisions."Sued as in going to jail. No that does not happen (unless he was corrupt, then yes i would not be surprised if they brought the squeletons out of his closet at that time). Sued as in His image being attacked and may end up loosing his bench. This might happen, thou if he was not able to take the flac, dont know if he was fit for the job to begin with. Again, part of leathership is taking the flac for unpoppular policies.

"where you spoke of ill advised taxes and protectionism, it could just be the lack of competent professionals to design better policies, at least back then in the 80s."In the 80s protectinism was warranted, the military dictatorship had banckrupted the country (something that many like to omit when disscussing our foreign debt, whether it is in fact legitimate or not), and destroyed much of the industry through extreme liberalism. Thou at the time the government control on foreign currency was not so tight, that is not the case now.

My personal ideal political proposal here would call for an end to the state intervention in currency value, after that happens lift import restrictions (or lesen them), an importan reform to education and health, the lvl of education here is generaly speaking good but public universities need to be reformed and adjust to current technologies and techniques that are not adopted more out of habit than anything else (speaking about educational expertice here, not technicall knowledge). That is what i would like to see, in a nut shell, but i know number 1 will not happen, thus neither will the rest.I am not against government payed education (thou i did not use it). I am not against government payed healthcare, in fact here there are 2 systems, sate and private, whenever one could choose i would always go with my health ensuarence, having said that, while not as "pretty" for lack of a better word, the state healthcare will be there should i ever need it.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Pete said,.....But all of a sudden, with the intervention of the that reviled institution, the federal government, what looked like a trend [the fading of the world dominance of the American auto industry], reversed itself in a hurry.----------------------------------------Pete, if someone came along and by the power of government cancelled all the debts of a company and handed it a bundle of money, it should be expected that it would do better. But I don't see the building booms in place raising new sky scrapers in Detroit and people flocking there to find work and enjoy the good life. You may be crowing a little too early in the morning of the moribund American auto industry. Don't misunderstand me, I would love that all would be as well as you long for it to be, but I think the good times are all gone and we've got to be moving on.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Everett, what you call crowing is merely stating the facts. i was responding to Xavier by reminding him that it is hard to predict the future based on the present. That facts are that it looked like the car industry was headed for oblivion and that trend was reversed. What that will do for Detroit precisely remains to be seen. But that is a whole different subject. I never claimed that Detroit was going to make a major comeback, build sky scrapers, etc. Just because one action does not "save the world" does not mean it wasn't the right thing to do. The government cannot save the world by itself. But it can do some good when well played.

Since the comeback of the auto industry did not solve all of the regions problems does that mean you are advocating that we should have let the auto companies go bankrupt and be dismantled, thereby thousands of people losing their jobs? Would that have helped Detroit? Or faced with problems that can be fixed should we just throw up our hands and walk away, since we are all going to pot anyway?

I wonder if you would apply this line of thinking if you were in the middle of a stroke in a public place and the people around you would conclude that you were going to die anyway, so why bother calling 911? Or perhaps you might prefer to see the paramedics try to save your life? And perhaps you might not be so concerned at that moment if saving your life would greatly enhance the lives of all the people you know.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges Peter. "The auto industry" was not gone or even in trouble, just two American auto makers. There are well tested mechanisms in place to deal with situations like that. Instead Washington imposed its will and while John's job was saved, David was denied one. Market forces, including self-interest, used to decide that, now it was done by bureaucrats. One form of unfairness was substituted by another only the new one doesn't have the same organizational capacity except in theory. The promises of bureaucrats hold people in Detroit when the opportunities have moved elsewhere.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Xavier, The US auto industry was in deep trouble. Yes, only two were on the verge of bankruptcy, but if those two went under it would have serious ripple effects on the other US car maker, Ford. The hit to the car suppliers would be devastating and it would surely affect Ford.

You are right that the market would sort it all out. Just like the plague sorted all sorts of things out in the middle Ages. The problem with all this "sorting out' is that in the meantime. possibly years and years, there is a lot of suffering, confusion, and major hits to the economy. Maybe you are OK with the prospect of 15% unemployment as a result of major industry re-shuffling, but some of us are not comfortable with that level of instability. The auto fix was relatively painless and it worked. The Treasury will not be losing much if anything at all. American companies were restructured and there was minimal disruption.

Candidate Romney was lying through his teeth when he suggested there was a private equity solution to restructuring GM. If there was, there would be no need for the government (George W. Bush) to step in. Do you think a free-trader like Bush would support a GM rescue package if the private sector was prepared to act?

Of course, you can say that you don't care if there are American car makers. The Japanese, the Koreans, and the Germans would be very happy to fill our need for cars. Maybe it is misplaced patriotism, but I kind of like the idea of a thriving American car industry. And the future of the American car industry was at great risk. We already lost our steel industry due to our inability to modernize. We lost our ability to manufacture TVs and so many other industrial products.

But here's the bottom line, Xavier. Wall Streeters have been very critical of this President. They accuse him of being "anti-business." But I never heard Wall Street being critical of the auto bailout. Only Romney, due to his political ambitions did. But even though Wall Street backed his candidacy due to his stands on regulation, they never echoed his views on letting the car makers bite the dust.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Peter, and do you think all of the players would have just sat around and watch all of their investments go down the drain? In the end it would have also been a bankruptcy but one negotiated by the players under court supervision, not one imposed by Washington. The only half reasonable argument I've heard thus far is that bridge financing would not have been available, and I say half reasonable because having been a banker faced with the exact same situation, I know that the last thing we wanted to show when bigger pockets were around was that if push came to shove we would have stepped in. No way GM and Chrysler would have been allowed by the financial community to go entirely belly-up. The big mistake with Lehman was how much the government had done to help guarantee the earlier bailout of, ay, I forget the name, okay it came back, Bear Stearns.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Well Steve Radner tells a different story. He was right there in the middle of the bankruptcy and even that got hairy. We are talking early 2009 and if you remember there was no risk taking in the private financial community. Half of the big banks had just gotten bailout money to shore up their own capitalization. Chase and Wells Fargo didn't need it but B of A and Citigroup probably should have gone under.

So you have GM hemorraging money and so who was going to ride in to rescue them. it would have taken time to get conditions where banks would have even thought about it and that would have required huge layoffs if it could have been done at all. I don't think that I have heard anyone other than you and Mitt Romney say that this could have been done any other way. That is unless you think selling off pieces of GM to Toyota and Nissan was a viable plan.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

and both Mitt Romney and I were in the business of corporate restructuring, including everything that happened to GM and Chrysler, and including restructuring across and between companies, i.e. through complex cross-company restructurings and swaps, so we know what we are talking about.

I bet anything that outfits similar to Romney''s, about which I don't know that much but others like KKR, had already developed contingency strategies. Indeed, I was very surprised that the government helped Cerberus unload Chrysler on Fiat when Cerberus was probably making a killing on Chrysler's financing arm.

As to Steve Rattner, not Radner, of course even with government funds there were still many difficulties of which he would speak and write. Thank God they didn't just go in and pay for and buy out anything and everything. At least I have never suggested the players directly involved didn't exercise fiduciary responsibility.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Sweden had sold sold its auto company to a foreign, stronger company. In Germany the local communities would have banded around to save them, including major labor and banking sacrifices. In Japan the keiretsus would save their own after conning the government for financial assistance as well as squeezing workers for their contribution to the cause --why do you think the Japanese people are so thrifty? Korea I don't know enough about but I suspect some similarities to Japn's keiretsus.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Scenario: Zach's girlfriend has an epiphany that if Zach keeps playing Xbox, he will never propose to her. If she pours a 2 liter bottle of Dr. Pepper into the game console, is her action rational and justified?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

OK - I hope you understand that I'm not trying to make this too personal. I'm just trying to switch to scenarios that are more plausible and predictable in outcome than “Minority Report – Delta Force” taking on 20th century world leaders. I’m a little leery of calling for the “smiting” of anyone before they actually commit a capital offense. Since the person has free will, then they always have the opportunity to turn away from evil before committing an act. So I agree that smiting your Xbox may not be rational and justified based solely on its potential role in future events.

Army buddy scenario - In this case, I’m trying to point out that free will and predictability of outcomes are not necessarily mutually exclusive events. All subjects have free will in this scenario (including the friend who can decline the invite the harmony of the house) and everything plays out fairly predictably. Often, the very thing that will break the predictability is free will: the friend can extend an olive branch to the girl, you can suggest ending the gathering early when you sense tension, or the girl can arrange a visit to her friends to avoid the situation.

(Wiki) Omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. Is it a cop-out to say that we might be correct to call G-d omniscient, but we haven’t the slightest clue from our context to know even the scope of “everything there is to know”? Maybe G-d can visualize the square root of negative one times 20 apples, or maybe that equation is simply folly to G-d and not worthy of His consideration.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Abraham Kaplan “I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding.” Logic is just one tool for rational thinking. Not everything is bound by logic or can be solved by logic. (Stuff happens.) Use your imagination; put yourself in someone else’s shoes.

I believe you've stumbled into the "fever swamps of blind behaviorism and determinism." Ask yourself, is determinism:a. A law of science? (Do atoms decay based on Determinism?)b. A universal doctrine of the Christian church?c. A philosophical model?

If determinism if a law of human nature, then your preferences are meaningless. Your need for liberty becomes just a chemical imbalance in the brain that needs treatment.